Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, each day, peace officers nobly protect our families, friends, and neighbors from crime and work to improve the quality of life for all of us. For that, they deserve our sincere appreciation and respect. While it is impossible to suitably thank these brave Americans for the tremendous sacrifices they make, we pause this week to salute them for their courage, dedication, and service and to pay our respects to those who have fallen in the line of duty. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy designated May 15 of every year as Peace Officers Memorial Day. This day was set forth to give special recognition to the brave men and women who protect our lives every day, often at great risk to their health and lives. On average, a crime is committed in this country every 2 seconds, and you can rest assured that one of the nearly 800,000 law enforcement officers in this great country will respond promptly and courageously, no matter how dangerous the situation might be. It is appropriate that we both honor current peace officers and memorialize fallen heroes for the safety and assistance they provide us all. Recent events just miles from this building in Fairfax, Virginia, offered a clear and present example of the dangers law enforcement officers face each day. In this past year alone, 155 law officers were killed and over 10,000 were assaulted in the line of duty as they protected and served their communities. While this number is down from the previous decade's average of 169 annually, it is still very unacceptable. This week, thousands of law enforcement officers from around the country gathered in Washington, D.C., to pay tribute and to mourn together. Those of us who benefit from their hard work and sacrifice also honor their work and sacrifices. We all owe them a debt of gratitude that we can never repay. Madam Speaker, I support the goals and ideals of Peace Officers Memorial Day, as I am sure every Member of the House does, to honor Federal, State and local peace officers killed or disabled in the line of duty; and I support this day to honor those who stand for us every day in the line of duty. I call upon the people of the United States to observe such a day with appropriate ceremonies and respect, wherever they are. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the fourth bill in the Free and Equal DC series. This series includes measures that all involve obsolete or inappropriate intervention into the local affairs of the District of Columbia. The other bills in the series are the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act, the District of Columbia Legislative Autonomy Act, and the District of Columbia Hatch Reform Act. This bill would give the Mayor of the District of Columbia the same authority over the District of Columbia National Guard (DCNG) as the governors of all 50 States have over their guard units. My work on the Homeland Security Committee convinces me that this bill is necessary now more than at any time in the District's history. In most circumstances involving a suspected terrorist incident and in all circumstances constituting local emergencies, the Mayor of the District of Columbia should have the same authority as governors. The National Guards in the 50 states operate under similar dual federal and local jurisdiction. Yet the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief alone has the authority to call up the DC National Guard for any purpose here, local or national. Each governor, however, as the head of state, has the authority to mobilize the National Guard to protect the local jurisdiction, just as local militia did historically. Today, the most likely need is to call upon the National Guard to restore order in the wake of civil disturbances and natural disasters. Today it could prove necessary to act quickly without knowing the origin of an event. The Mayor, who knows the city better than any federal official and works closely with federal security officials, should be able to call on the DCNG to cover local natural disasters or civil disturbances without relying on the President, who may be preoccupied with national matters, including perhaps war or security matters, or relying on a delegated official with little familiarity with the city. It does no harm to give the Mayor the authority. However, it could do great harm to leave him powerless to act quickly. If it makes sense that a governor would have control over the mobilization and deployment of the state National Guard, it makes the same sense for the Mayor of the District of Columbia, with a population the size of that of small states, should have the same authority. The Mayor of the District of Columbia, acting as head of state, should have the authority to call upon the DCNG in instances that do not rise to the level of federal importance necessary to implicate the authority of the President. Today requiring action by the President of the United States could endanger the life and health of DC residents, visitors and federal employees. Procedures that require the Mayor to request the needed assistance from the Commander in Chief for a local National Guard matter are as old as the republic, and are dangerously obsolete. This bill would deprive the President of his authority over the DC National Guard. The President could still nationalize the Guard at will, as he can with the Guards of the 50 states, and particularly here in the nation's capital. Following the September 11th terrorist attacks, I succeeded in including a provision in the Homeland Security Act recognizing that the District of Columbia must be an integral part of the planning, implementation, and execution of national plans to protect city residents, federal employees, and visitors by including the District of Columbia, as a separate and full partner and first responder in federal domestic preparedness legislation. At a minimum, such recognition also demonstrates the respect for local governance and home rule that every jurisdiction that recruits members of the military to its National Guard deserves, especially today when the Guards are no longer weekend warriors, as the Iraq war demonstrates. The confusion that accompanied the September 11 attack plainly showed the danger inherent in allowing bureaucratic steps to stand in the way of responding to emergencies in the nation's capital. September 11 has made local control of the DCNG an imperative. This bill is another important step necessary to complete the transfer of full self-government powers to the District of Columbia that Congress itself began with the passage of the Home Rule Act of 1973. District authority over its own National Guard apparently was not raised during the Home Rule Act process. However, it was almost unthinkable then that there would be war in the homeland, much less terrorist threats to the nation's capital. What should be unthinkable after 9-11 in an era of global terrorism is allowing to stand old and antiquated layers. Giving the mayor of the District of Columbia authority to call up the National Guard could make the difference in protecting the safety of the residents, federal employees, and visitors alike. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his kind words. I thank Mr. Porter for his work in bringing this resolution to the floor. We are right to recognize public charter schools. Public charter schools are the most important innovation in public education since the invention of free public education in our country. They have become so popular, they have become a movement, growing like ``Topsy''. The Congress, when Newt Gingrich was here, as an alternative to vouchers, helped jump-start public charter schools in the District of Columbia and in the Nation by passing the first public charter school bill right here in the Congress for the District, with the agreement and total home rule involvement of the District of Columbia. That was in 1995. What did the schools do? They helped us jump-start a movement that has produced in the District of Columbia the largest number of public charter schools per capita in the United States. As I look down the list, Mr. Speaker, the District has more charter schools, this one city, than most States. They have really taken off for some years now as an alternative to D.C. public schools. When a child does not have a school that is offering that child and that family what the child deserves, then the child must have an alternative. It can be going out of its neighborhood; and the best alternative and the only acceptable alternative, it seems to me, would be some other kind of public charter school. That is what has happened in the District of Columbia. That is why the people of the District of Columbia resent deeply that, despite the growth of the charter school movement, despite the fact that we have some of the best charter schools in the country and the largest number per capita, that Congress imposed on us something it would not accept for the rest of the country, and that is private school vouchers. Well, our people have voted with their feet. They want a neighborhood school near them. These schools are very important. Most of the religious schools are in Northwest. Most of our kids who need or want alternative schools live in Southeast. So Congress did vouchers for itself. It did not do it for us, and it did it against our will when, in fact, we had demonstrated that public charter schools were, in fact, working in D.C. and working very well. A child must have an alternative, but that alternative cannot be one where the public dollar is not accounted for, where there is no oversight by the public. And I am the last one who wants oversight, for example, of religious schools or anything involving religion. It follows that religious schools must not be that alternative. The thriving public charter school movement is, in fact, and should be that alternative. All kinds of innovations are happening in the District of Columbia that I invite people to come and see: Shared facilities in large buildings (instead of getting rid of the building) between public and charter schools. Collaboration now between the best of our charter schools and some public schools which are not doing so well. Public schools, public charter schools, unlike many public schools even under No Child Left Behind, are a case of the survival of the fittest. You lose your charter, in fact, if you do not measure up. That is what happens in the District of Columbia. As far as I know, it happens wherever the schools are well run. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to note just for the record the kinds of reasons that charter schools flourish. We have technology schools, bilingual schools. We have performing arts charter schools in the District. We have math and science charter schools. We have an enterprising development charter school. I would just like to have the Congress know some of the charter schools that are regarded as the best in the United States: D.C. Preparatory Academy Public Charter School; the Friendship Edison Charter School; KIPP D.C., The Key Academy Public Charter School; Paul Public Charter School. Mr. Speaker, the District of Columbia actually has the first public boarding school, and it is a charter school. It is called the SEED Public Charter School. This is what you can do. This is the kind of innovation that comes from charter schools. It doesn't come from religious schools. They have their own way. They have had it for hundreds of years. If you want innovation in public education, if you want an alternative to your public schools, the best bet are charter schools, which will be located right in your neighborhood, which are so accountable that they lose their charters if they do not in fact produce. I strongly support this resolution, and I appreciate that it has come forward today.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce the Dedicated Dental Service for HIV/AIDS (DDS for HIV/AIDS) Act of 2006 to establish a loan repayment program for dental school graduates in exchange for their agreement to remedy a critical shortage of dentists for the poor, particularly in areas with a high incidence of HIV and AIDS, by agreeing to serve such patients. This bill is similar to legislation Congress has enacted in the past to encourage other health professionals, such as physicians, nurses, optometrists and pharmacists to provide vital services in underserved areas. Howard University professors of dentistry inform us that the first indicators of HIV/AIDS infection are often oral health problems. Oral health problems often not only constitute an important early signal of HIV/AIDS symptoms; they also serve as benchmarks for disease progression. One of the most serious problems with the spread of HIV/ AIDS is the reluctance of people to be tested for such a disease, especially in the African American community and other big city and rural areas. Access to dental care, I therefore, is critically important from the earliest onset, especially in high impact areas. Access, of course, minimizes long term oral health complications for patients, but it also provides important linkages to good overall medical care to combat the disease in the community. A recent RAND health study on HIV costs and services found that the vast majority of patients received care at their local AIDS clinic, not a primary dentist. Moreover, these disfavored patients must look for service within the context of a nationwide drop in dental school applicants and graduates, and a projected 60 percent loss of active dentists due to retirement. As a result, the average American, especially those with HIV/AIDS, will or already are having difficulty in obtaining dental care. For HIV/AIDS patients the crisis is palpable. They have even more difficulty than other Americans finding dentists who will accept Medicaid or treat patients at reduced cost. Some dentists are reluctant to provide care. Although only one case of transmission between dentist and patient has been documented, problems of access are acute. Many patients must travel long distances to find care. Many states do not include dental care as part of their Medicaid coverage. Patients often must search for providers such as schools of dentistry or local community clinics which receive some funds from the Dental Reimbursement Program (DRP), administered through the Ryan White CARE Act. My bill would create a loan forgiveness program for dental school graduates who agree to serve HIV/AIDS populations in areas where there is a high incidence of such cases, as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services. This program is drawn from the nurse loan forgiveness program passed by Congress in 1998. The crisis for the dental profession, especially in the distribution of dentists in underserved areas, is even greater than for physicians. Dental school graduates incur an average loan debt of $100,000. Under the guidelines of the program, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services is authorized to pay 60 percent of the principal and interest on the loans in exchange for service for a period of no less than two years. If a dentist agrees to participate in a third year of service, another 25 percent of the principal and interest on his loans will be paid. Loan forgiveness programs bring important added value because many recipients remain in practice in the area to which they are assigned. The secretary of HHS is to submit to the Congress a report on the program, with information including the number of dentists enrolled, the number and amount of loan repayments, the placement location of loan repayment recipients, and the evaluation of the overall costs and benefits of the program. With more than one million Americans with HIV/AIDS, and over 16,000 in the District of Columbia, and its impact among people of color, these health providers need greater attention. We are proud of the overworked and underfunded services that are available in the District of Columbia. The Howard School of Dentistry has a long history of providing dental services to the poor here, and the HU CARES program, provides care for nearly 1,200 patients a year. The vital Whitman Walker Clinic, the largest provider of comprehensive HIV/AIDS services in the District and the region serves over 1,500 dental patients a year. I urge my colleagues to join with me in establishing this dental loan repayment program that will meet an immediate and pressing need in communities across the country, as we have for other professions.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the District of Columbia Tax Incentives Improvement Act of 2006. The legislation builds on and adds to federal tax incentives I first got through Congress in 1997 in order to help produce residential and business stability and growth. These tax credits have surpassed the city's highest hopes with a renewed and replenished residential and business tax base to show for it. However, this bill is necessary if this growth is to continue to make up for the fact that the District is not a state. Studies and investigation by experts widely agree that the D.C. credits have been very successful and have been the single most important factor both in stemming residential flight and in stimulating commercial development in the applicable neighborhoods. However the changes are appropriate to: reduce but target the credits to poor neighborhoods not yet reached; increase the efficiency of the incentives; achieve increased leverage from city and other federal resources; and provide more incentive to purchase homes given the large increase in housing prices in the District. The legislation would extend the life of the D.C. Enterprise Zone (EZ) Benefits to 2009 to put the District on par with the other cities that have empowerment zones and will allow the city to fully realize and assess the effectiveness of the incentives and eliminate the continuing uncertainty that has plagued the program. There was a disruption of economic activity and planning by the business sector when Congress did not immediately renew those provisions that expired at the end of 2003. The District is experiencing this setback again as H.R. 4297, the Tax Reconciliation Act of 2005, has not yet been passed and the District tax provisions are extended in that bill. The improved EZ incentives will target the areas of greatest need; align the Zone boundaries with areas designated for concentrated investment by the Mayor's Great Streets Initiative; and more effectively connect the unemployed with job opportunities by limiting the Employment Credit to those businesses that employ persons residing in those census tracts that have unemployment rates twice that of the national average. The legislation also asks for a triple tax exemption for District bonds which would allow the District to issue bonds at lower interest rates and put D.C. on par with other ``stateless'' jurisdictions, including Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands, with no loss of revenue to the federal treasury. Currently, bonds issued by the District are exempt from federal and District taxes, but subject to taxation by state and local governments for bondholders located outside the District. With the first-time homebuyer tax credit, this bill raises the $5,000 credit for a first-time homebuyer in the District to $10,000 to help meet sharply increased home prices that are driving many lower middle and middle income taxpayers from the city. Senator Trent Lott raised the amount in the Senate bill several years ago, but that bill did not pass the House. The homebuyer credit and the economic development occurring in the District have been almost entirely responsible for significantly stemming taxpayer, residential and business flight, bringing both in significant numbers to the District. However, the improvements in my bill are essential if the District is to achieve the 100,000 new residents necessary to sustain its stability that the former D.C. control board said was necessary. The federal tax incentives provided under the Enterprise Zone and homebuyer credit programs will be critical to the continuation of the District's essential fiscal partnership with the federal government, which seeks to diversify the D.C. economy, reverse the continuing rise in the unemployment rate in significant portions of the city, strengthen and diversify the District's narrow tax base, and address its structural fiscal imbalance. The D.C. Enterprise Zone tax incentives and the homebuyer credit alone cannot solve these problems. But by extending and improving these measures, Congress can continue to make a low-cost, efficient and effective contribution to the District's economic well being.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, it has become necessary to introduce a bill that is necessary for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to function as Congress intended. Federal law requires that judges of the Superior Court and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Article I Courts, to be nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. This bill, which is the companion bill to S. 2068 introduced by Senator Susan Collins, will increase the number of Superior Court judges by 3 to 61 in order to allow the Superior Court to function at the 58 judge level approved by Congress. However, after the establishment of the new Family Court Division, the Superior Court was temporarily increased by three in order to assist the transition because Congress wanted to assure a full complement of family court judges. However, no permanent authorization reflecting the changes was approved. Consequently, as judges have retired or otherwise moved on, the President has continued to make nominations to fill each judge's seat. With no authorization for the necessary number of authorized judges, an unintended anomaly has resulted in Presidential nominations but no actual vacancies because the court is short three judges. Because as many as nearly 2 years occur after the Senate approval, lawyers are increasingly unwilling to give up their practices to apply for judgeships on the Superior Court, the trial court of jurisdiction for all criminal and civil matters in the District of Columbia. The 15-18 month pipeline for confirming new judges has presented the court with some serious concerns. With such a long waiting period, private and solo practitioners, for example, who are among the best qualified, are significantly deterred, and the court loses judicial talent that would otherwise be available. The present anomaly has forced the Superior Court to use senior or retired judges inappropriately. Because they are retired, senior judges take on particular cases or a full calendar temporarily, for up to a year. However, inasmuch as confirmed active or permanent judges often cannot be immediately seated, there is no judge to maintain the court's 2 calendars, one for criminal court and the other for temporary restraining orders and warrants. Consequently, several senior judges have taken on this indispensable duty since 2003. While senior judges, of course, take on cases, they do so at their discretion. It should never be the case that senior judges perform an important regular and vital function of the court for years at a time. I ask that this bill be approved to remedy this problem in the D.C. court system that results entirely from congressional action.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his working with the chair to get this bill to the floor. I am not on the committee of jurisdiction; so I want to particularly thank the committee for the honor. It is an unusual honor. We do not do this very often, what you do in bringing this resolution to the floor. And I want to give my thanks to Mr. LaHood and Ms. Woolsey, both, for the service they perform by serving on the board of this very important institution. The fact that there are two Members of Congress on the board of Gallaudet perhaps speaks for itself as to the importance of Gallaudet, chartered by the Congress of the United States and still an institution of great importance to the Congress. I do want to say to the gentleman from Wisconsin and to those of you, if you are one of them, Mr. LaHood, who are going to be at the game this evening, I always come to this wonderful game. As it turns out, I am having a reception myself tonight for the National Teacher of the Year, the first time since the award was given. It was set up in 1952, that the National Teacher of the Year comes from the District of Columbia. So you fellows are going to have to get along without me. When they asked me to come, they first asked me to be a member of the team. They really did not know what they were saying. I did volunteer to come, however, to be there to do whatever I could. In fact, if this reception is over, I do intend to stop by and to thank you also for that very important work. As you have heard, Gallaudet is really one of a kind. It is an institution without peer, the only institution for people who are deaf and hard of hearing of higher education throughout the world. So it is very precious to those of us in the District of Columbia who then see people come from all over the world to come to this singular institution. Now, there has got to be great sadness on the campus of Gallaudet even as we express our appreciation today. Dr. I. King Jordan was not simply an extraordinary educator. He came to his post through a vote of confidence before he even got there from the students who had a demonstration; and as a result of that demonstration, the board of trustees at that time thought about their decision, and Dr. Jordan became the first disabled person to head the university. It is hard to overemphasize what this meant to us in the District of Columbia. We saw it as wonderful history-making for a history-making institution, but that paled besides the joy of the students. You can imagine if you are going to a university for the deaf and the hard of hearing to see a person of such accomplishments head your own university. It was invaluable, I am sure, in ways that we shall never understand and shall never know. But then it was up to Dr. Jordan to prove himself, and I am here to tell you as a person who is very familiar with all the institutions, he continues to be a tenured professor of law at Georgetown, where I taught full time before coming to the Congress, and under Dr. Jordan this institution has prospered and grown to even more admiration than it already enjoyed. In order for that to happen, Dr. Jordan had simply to show that he could do what presidents do, and he has done that to a fare-thee-well, from fund raising, which may be the most difficult to do especially since this university does receive some funding from the Federal Government. But as my colleagues know from their own State university, that does not matter that much today. Presidents are supposed to get out here on the hustings the way everybody else does, the way that private universities always have. And here when Dr. Jordan did it not only like everybody else does but did it in extraordinary ways, you see evidence of it in the new construction on the campus. You see evidence of it in the way in which the excellence of the institution has even improved. It already had a stellar reputation, and you see it in a very important expansion for graduate education for the deaf and hard of hearing. Dr. I. King Jordan has performed with the excellence that the students expected. They knew what he could do. They knew from his academic reputation, they knew from his background, what he could do. He has performed up to that standard and well beyond. The resolution that my colleagues bring forward today could not be more well deserved, and I thank you once again for it. And I thank you for myself and I thank you for the residents of the District of Columbia, including the disabled students who, of course, are resident there during the time they attend Gallaudet.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee with whom I have worked so closely for making sure that this small bill got to the floor and got done. Mr. Speaker, S. 2116 is a bill to transfer the parcel of property currently under the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The parcel of land is a small triangle of land bounded by Constitution Avenue Northeast, Maryland Avenue Northeast, and Second Street Northeast. Once the parcel is transferred from the Architect to the Supreme Court, the Capitol Hill Police will no longer have the security responsibility for the parcel; and, further, the definition of the Capitol grounds will be amended to show that the parcel has been deleted from the definition of the Capitol grounds. The Supreme Court requested this transfer in order to enhance its perimeter security program. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill and urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, before I yield back the balance of my time I do want to say that this bill brings to mind, especially since it is being transferred for security reasons, the fact that we are operating under an old 19th century organization of the police that guard the complex of most important Federal building in the District of Columbia, the Supreme Court Police, the Library of Congress Police, and the Capitol Hill police. Mr. Speaker, at the moment we have some jurisdiction over this Federal police force. But the jurisdiction I am speaking of, which has already been passed by the Congress of the United States, is not under our jurisdiction, but because of the security which is the reason for the transfer, I do want to say that what we have with this complex of buildings that are within sight of one another, are very different police forces. We have a police force that is trained differently for the three most important buildings in this vicinity. The Library of Congress is trained differently. It is as if these were the police forces of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, that is dangerous. That is nothing short of dangerous. We have so shored up the Capitol, that any terrorist on the lookout for something to do in this vicinity is surely going to go to places that she may believe is less well guarded, like the Library of Congress, and like, if I may so, the Supreme Court of the United States. I have met with the Marshal of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Library of Congress. I am familiar with both their police forces. But now that this bill has been brought to the floor, I urge that we all respond to what has now become public, because the Library of Congress Police have raised the question again. There was an article in Roll Call just a few days ago that there were real security problems with the Library of Congress and its police. I have not heard the same thing about the Supreme Court. But I do not think we should rest well knowing that we have shored up the Congress of the United States and we hope everything is well with the Supreme Court and the Library of Congress. I think it is our obligation to make sure that it is, in fact, the case. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, with Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, I am introducing the District of Columbia Hatch Act Reform Act of 2006 to eliminate the discriminatory treatment of the District of Columbia under the federal Hatch Act. This bill would retain federal Hatch Act authority concerning prohibited partisan and political activity that applies to every state because of the receipt of federal funds and importantly, would require the District to enact its own local version of the Hatch Act barring similar local violations, to become effective. Such a bill would, of course, automatically be held over for Congressional review for 30 legislative days as required by the Home Rule Act, typically affording several months before a District law may become effective, more than ample time for review and compliance with this bill. The House recognized that the present federal Hatch Act jurisdiction over D.C. was obsolete by removing this federal responsibility several years ago, but the Senate failed to act accordingly. Local Hatch Act violations in the District are rare, but the District needs its own Hatch Act to fully account and be responsible for local violations, with which a local objective body would be most familiar and should bear the cost of alleged violations. This bill will leave in place the federal Hatch Act restrictions on the use of official authority as it relates to elections; the solicitation, acceptance, or receiving of political campaign contributions; and the prohibitions on running for public office in partisan elections and the use of on-duty time and resources to engage in partisan campaign. activity. My bill would remove only the federal Hatch Act jurisdiction that applies solely to the District of Columbia and would require the District to have its own local Hatch Act, like every other jurisdiction, instead of requiring the Office of Personnel Management and its Special Counsel to spend time on investigation, fact-finding and judgment of unfamiliar local matters. The District will bear this local responsibility and a dual inequity--denigration of local government at the expense of the federal government--would end.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing the District of Columbia Legislative Autonomy Act of 2006, the second in a series of ``Free and Equal D.C.'' bills to remove the remaining congressional statutes that impose discriminatory and unequal treatment on the District of Columbia as a U.S. jurisdiction, on its elected and public officials, and on its citizens. These bills are different from the No Taxation without Representation Act, which in addition to providing equal treatment, would remedy a major violation of basic human rights recognized under international law and treaties and, moreover, a human rights denial found only in the United States. Residents justifiably focus on this most basic of infringements, but our city can and must make more progress on other unnecessary requirements and denials that violate the rights of the taxpaying American citizens who live in the Nation's capital as well. The Free and Equal D.C. series addresses privileges, rights and benefits universally enjoyed not only by the citizens of State and local jurisdictions, but also by the four territories, under Federal principles of local control that govern the United States. Among the most important are the right to enact local budget, civil and criminal laws free from Federal interference. This bill's fraternal twin, the most important in the Free and Equal D.C. series, H.R. 1629, the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of 2005, sponsored by Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis and I, was introduced last year as the first bill of the series. The Senate passed the bill in 2003, and my goal is to achieve passage by both Houses this session. Because the period of congressional review involves only legislative days, when Congress is in session, not calendar days, D.C. laws typically do not become law for months, not days. A required hold on all D.C. bills, forces the City Council to pass most legislation using a cumbersome and complicated process in which bills are passed concurrently on an emergency, temporary, and permanent basis to ensure that the operations of the large and rapidly changing city continue. The Legislative Autonomy bill would eliminate the need for the District to engage in this Byzantine process that often requires a two-thirds super majority even for ordinary legislation. This second bill in the Free and Equal D.C. series would eliminate the congressional review period for civil and criminal District acts of 30 days and 60 days respectively. I have introduced today's legislative autonomy bill before, but today's bill is particularly timely because of substantial changes in congressional approach and practices in responding to Council-passed law. In effect, Congress has eliminated the review or layover period. My bill would do no more than align D.C. City Council practices with the approaches Congress uses today. Moreover, although control of the Congress changed in 1994 for the first time in 40 years, no resolution of disapproval has been heard in committee or used on the floor of either House. Instead of the cumbersome formal filing of bills that require processing in the House and the Senate, both use other more efficient processes, particularly appropriations or attachments to other bills. My bill would eliminate a formal review system that has died of old age and non-use. Congress has walked away from layover review and should allow the city to do the same. Today's bill, of course, does not prevent review of District laws by Congress. Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the House Government Reform Committee and the Senate Government Affairs Committee could scrutinize every piece of legislation passed by the City Council, if desired, and could change or strike legislation under the plenary constitutional authority over the District. However, today Congress prefers more rapid approaches. My bill merely eliminates the automatic hold placed on local legislation and eliminates the need for the City Council to use a Byzantine emergency and temporary process to keep the District functioning under law. Since the Home Rule Act became effective in 1974, of over 2000 legislative acts that have been passed by the Council and signed into law by the Mayor, only three resolutions to disapprove a D.C. bill have been enacted, and two involved a distinct Federal interest; only 43 acts have been challenged by a congressional disapproval resolution. Federal law to correct for a Federal interest, of course, would be appropriate for any jurisdiction, but placing a hold on 2000 bills has not only proved unnecessary, but has meant untold costs in money, staff and time to the District and the Congress. We continually urge the District government to pursue greater efficiency and savings. Congress must now do its part to promote greater efficiency both here and in the District by streamlining its own cumbersome, redundant, and obsolescent review processes. Eliminating the hold on D.C. legislation would not only save scarce D.C. taxpayer revenue; my bill would benefit the city's bond rating, which is effected by the shadow of congressional review that delays the certainty of finality to District legislation. At the same time, Congress would give up none of its plenary power because the Congress may intervene into any District matter at any time. Thus, the limited legislative autonomy granted in this bill would allow the District to realize the greater measure of meaningful self- government and Home Rule it deserves and has more than earned in the 32 years since the Home Rule Act became effective. This goal can be achieved not only without prejudice to congressional authority. A congressional practice for many years now that has meant savings to Congress should now be reciprocated to the City Council as well. I urge my colleagues to pass this important measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I must say, Mr. Speaker, we thought of going forward with this bill under unanimous consent because we did not think there was a single Member of the House of Representatives who would want to deny to people searching for a job after the worst disaster in American history the funds that would enable them to live while they search for a job. So I am amazed. I will be amazed that there is a single vote against the bill. But I think the chutzpah to stand on the floor and say we are throwing money at a problem, when I have just recounted what these benefits will mean in that part of the country, less than $100 a week for families looking for work, is an amazing statement to make. We are throwing money at a problem? We are giving unemployment benefits to people looking for work who have no other means because Mother Nature has taken their means from them. Moreover, may I remind this House that twice after 9/11 we extended unemployment benefits. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at the way the press has not closed up shop and gone home after Katrina. Story after story continues to tell us what is happening in the gulf region. We have just seen Mardi Gras stories over and over again. I was pleased to see Mardi Gras celebrated in the region. The region is doing for itself what it can do. As I think about this bill, I think that there are people who are on unemployment benefits who got a job during Mardi Gras and who came back home who no longer need unemployment benefits. I want us to also remember that New Orleans, in particular, which is known for its Mardi Gras gaiety, this is the oil producing, the energy producing region of our country. We need it to get back on its feet. This bill will help the region, the whole region, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, to do just that. We are helping the people, and that is the way to help the region. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for the kind of bipartisan cooperation that I think truly reflects the spirit in which this bill comes to the floor today. Our country is so well known for disaster relief, generously and spontaneously given to the rest of the world, that the rest of the world actually came forward and offered relief to the United States after Katrina occurred. In a real sense the standard we have set for ourselves in the rest of the world sets the standard for what we do in our country. Will we be known when this disaster has cleared for the generosity of the response to Katrina? Despite the sour note of one Member only at the beginning, I want to say that I have seen anything but that in the workings of our committee. It did make it necessary for us to make the case in a way we thought would have been unnecessary. For example, when you talk about throwing money at a problem, it makes me realize that some people do not even understand what unemployment benefits are about. They do not understand that you can only get unemployment benefits if you have had a job so that we are by definition talking about working people. And because many have not been unemployed, they may not understand what you have to go through to keep getting your benefits, to report to the office, to show evidence of having looked for a job. In other words, we are talking here about people who worked, who have every desire to work, and who need a meager benefit in order to keep looking for work. That is why this bill is minimally reflective of where most Members would be. I think the bill at its base reflects the bipartisan spirit of this House when it comes to extending benefits that would allow people who want to work to, in fact, do that work. And, indeed, if we should be so fortunate that these benefits may inspire some to go back home to places few of us would want to go because of all the future comforts that are gone, to go back home with meager benefits, with no housing, with insufficient health care, to go back home to help rebuild their community, that is the America that we all know. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Don Young, Ranking Member Jim Oberstar, and, of course, my subcommittee chairman, Bill Shuster, for their leadership in acting together to assure that unemployment benefits are available to the many victims of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita who want to work. We are acting in virtual unison, though under the wire, to pass S. 1777, the Katrina Emergency Assistance Act of 2006, which extends unemployment assistance under the Stafford Act, providing essential unemployment benefits before they lapse on Saturday. This bill extends the period that victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita would be eligible for unemployment benefits to an additional 13 weeks, for a total of 39 weeks. Currently, the disaster unemployment assistance benefit period begins the week following the disaster or the date thereafter that the individual becomes unemployed and can extend up to 26 weeks after the declaration or until the individual becomes reemployed. This bill means 39 more desperately needed weeks, in addition to the first 26 weeks. The Department of Labor has the usual authority to administer the program. The extension of these benefits would help untold thousands of workers who lost their jobs as a direct result of the unprecedented storms that hit the gulf region late last summer but do not qualify for regular unemployment assistance. The Labor Department reports that more than 500,000 individuals have already filed new unemployment claims. Unemployment at 12.5 percent for those who had returned in November was more than twice the national rate; and for those still displaced the rate was an amazing 27.5 percent, more than twice the rate for those who had returned. Unemployment benefits are available, of course, only for workers in search of actual employment. These benefits may, nevertheless, of course, be used wherever these workers are living today. However, the benefits also may encourage needed workers to take the many risks associated with returning to gulf cities and towns at a time when all the basic ingredients of working communities, from housing to health care, are at unprecedented low levels. For example, relatively few workers have returned, despite a high rate of job openings in New Orleans. With at least the guarantee of unemployment benefits during the job hunt and much more rapid and sensible job training and reconstruction policies, these benefits could leverage new work opportunities for gulf residents that were unavailable even before the storm, leave alone what the benefits could do in helping the reconstruction of the region itself. At the same time, I regret that a provision similar to the one approved by the committee of jurisdiction in the other body to increase unemployment benefits to 50 percent of the national average of unemployment benefits had to be removed from the final bill to achieve the rapid agreement needed. Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana have the lowest unemployment benefits in the country. As a result, disaster unemployment benefits for these States are as low as $87, $90 and $97 per week, respectively. Fifty percent of the national average for unemployment benefit amounts to $135 a week. In an area of the country that even before Hurricane Katrina suffered long-term unemployment at record levels, this increase could have made a major difference to families who need much more assistance than the typical unemployed worker, because many have lost everything, including their homes. For the gulf victims, the job search that S. 1777 will afford is much more than finding a job. This bill will help some victims return to the gulf region to begin building their lives from scratch. Many who qualify for these benefits were in the lowest wage categories and are among the neediest for assistance. This extension will help them move forward after experiencing the worst natural disaster in the Nation's history. The American people would want us to take at least the step of passing this urgently needed legislation today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I mentioned 9/11 because I think there is a standard here, a kind of control group. I mentioned that we had had to extend unemployment benefits twice during 9/11. This was a terrorist attack, 3,000 people killed. Thank God, the entire City of New York was not wiped out. Compare, however, that disaster, as tragic as it was, with wiping out an entire city, the whole city gone, all means of employment gone, now being slowly revived. And I think we will have some appreciation for the American heart. We knew what to do on 9/11. We will be there for people as long as you need us. And the wonderful thing about unemployment benefits is, they go straight to the person. And, of course, what unemployment benefits do, because the people who get them spend them for necessities in their communities, so what unemployment does at the same time is, of course, to help the community, the economy of the community where the unemployment benefits are being spent. This is very good money for very desperate people. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. The kind of small business owners, for example, that the gentleman was talking about, if you are a hot dog vendor, those are some of the most industrious people in society. An example would be people who are willing to work for themselves where they get no benefits of any kind, but work harder than most of us. I used the hot dog vendor, because that is fairly typical of the kind of person we are talking about. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Orleans (Mr. Jefferson), the city which suffered the worst natural disaster of any big city in American history.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the University of the District of Columbia Graduate Programs Act that amends Section 326 of the Higher Education Act to provide federal Historically Black College and University (HBCU) grant funding to the qualified graduate programs at the University of the District of Columbia. The University of the District of Columbia, or UDC, is the District's only public university and institution of higher learning. An open admission institution at the undergraduate level, the University has consistently and historically provided higher education opportunity to D.C. residents at low and affordable cost. The University justifiably prides itself on its vital role in educating the leaders of the next generation by producing theoretically sound and practically skilled graduates, ready to undertake careers in service in both the public and private sectors. UDC also is one of the Nation's oldest HBCUs, but the university did not receive federal funding as an HBCU until 1999, when Congress passed the District of Columbia College Access Act that my good friend, Government Reform Committee Chair Tom Davis, and I sponsored to establish the D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant program. Funding from the Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGIs) program will allow UDC to increase its production of skilled graduates in vital disciplines and jobs in which African Americans, Hispanics and others are underrepresented and to strengthen its graduate programs in occupations where there are shortages in our region. For example, the University has graduate degree programs in cancer biology prevention and control, early childhood education, mathematics, special education, and speech and language pathology, and other graduate programs in the College of Arts and Sciences, the David A. Clarke School of Law, and the School of Business and Public Administration. A graduate curriculum is being developed in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kindness in yielding. My condolences first to Yolanda and Martin the Third, and Dexter and Bernice. I come to the floor to speak of Coretta Scott King, the woman, and of Coretta, my friend. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will remember Coretta as I am sure she wanted to be remembered, as a movement woman, fully engaged from the outset in the work of her husband, except it was their work. King himself said, ``I did not bring Coretta to this work, she was there.'' These two people found each other, these southerners who went north for education, precisely because, alone and in the North with few blacks and whites who believed that they did, they were fully at one with each other. Coretta Scott King did not come to the movement by marriage. She once herself said she was married to the movement as well as to Martin. She therefore is not like most widows of great men. Of course, she carried on his legacy, but anyone who watched how ceaselessly and magnificently she worked for the essence of his legacy, nonviolence and universal human rights, will of course understand that Coretta Scott King deserves to be remembered, in justice, for her own extraordinary work. I cannot help but also remember Coretta the friend, the friend who I would lolly-gag on the phone and laugh and talk about any old thing, not about the movement, but any old thing, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s at the height of her movement work. The last time we spoke, we sat underneath the Lincoln Memorial in those rooms preparing to go up to unveil the marker where King gave his 1963 March on Washington speech. May she be remembered for herself and her great work.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to join my colleagues in honoring Helen Sewell as she retires from the House of Representatives. Helen Sewell has honored our city as a longtime resident and the House by devoting extraordinary service under the particularly difficult hours and circumstances of service in the cloak room. Ms. Sewell's devotion to the House, to the people of the United States, and to the District, whom we service, has been so great that she was still serving at 80 years old. Her loyalty to the House and its work has given vital support to Members of Congress and to the important business of the country. As the House honors Ms. Sewell and wish her well, the residents of the District of Columbia join me in thanking Helen Sewell for dedicated service to the House of Representatives.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the House to honor Dunbar High School, a legendary high school whose importance in American history is well known. I had the good fortune to graduate from Dunbar High School 50 years ago and my class has asked that I bring Dunbar's proud history to the attention of the House on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Class of 1955. Dunbar High School was America's first public high school for African Americans and rose to prominence in the era of segregation and remained segregated until 1954, when the District of Columbia was one of the six Brown v. Board of Education jurisdictions that successfully challenged segregated schools in the United States. Dunbar's excellence was so recognized and well known nationally that the best colleges and universities annually visited Dunbar to recruit students. An unusually large number of this country's most distinguished African Americans graduated from Dunbar. Among them are Edward Brooke, the first black Senator, Robert C. Weaver, the first black Cabinet member, Benjamin O. Davis, the first black general, Wesley Brown, the first black graduate of the Naval Academy, Charles R. Drew, the discoverer of blood plasma and Mary Jane Patterson, the first African American to achieve a college degree. The 50th anniversary of the class of 1955 is another occasion for pride in our class and in our alma mater. Pride and gratitude as graduates of Dunbar High School, which prepared us so well for life and career. Pride in graduating from the first public high school in the United States for African Americans. Pride in Dunbar's storied history of educating so many African Americans who have made notable contributions to society. Pride that our alma mater encourages today's students to strive for the same excellence Dunbar encouraged in our class. And pride that we can celebrate magnificent, irreplaceable, and lasting memories of the fun and fellowship we shared together. For all these reasons and more, I take special pleasure in congratulating our class, Dunbar High School Class of 1955, on our 50th anniversary. I ask the House to join me in congratulating the Class of 1955 and in recognizing the historic achievements on Dunbar High School itself.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I cannot help but note the irony of a bill celebrating Christmas or its symbols coming on the floor in a session that has just destroyed Christmas for millions of poor people. I am going to make a request of this Member, because I know her and I respect her and I regard her as a friend. And as a Christian, I am going to ask her in the name of interfaith tolerance if she would withdraw this resolution because it is needlessly divisive, and I think she did not realize when she put it in how divisive it is. For example, the gentlewoman said Merry Christmas to you, Madam Speaker. I do not know what your background is. But I do not believe she would have said Merry Christmas to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman). And in a real sense, that sums up where our country has come simply to be tolerant of the fact that we are from many faiths, and we do not want to insult anybody. And I say to you that, far from references to Christmas needing to be supported, they are glorified, and we all know it. The notion of giving any aid and comport to the Fox campaign against ``happy holidays'' would be funny if it were not so serious. Understand how ``happy holidays'' developed. It developed out of a country, first and foremost, where there was rampant anti-Semitism. Now, of course, we have many more, we have many more religions and much more diversity. It developed simply out of a sensitivity, so we developed proxy language, and so everybody feels comfortable even when it is not your particular religious holiday. I am not going to go up to a brown-skinned person in a turban and say, merry Christmas. I think that it is more appropriate to say, happy holidays. Maybe the gentlewoman understands why this is important for people who, unlike her and unlike me, are not Christians. If you do not want to feel guilty for wishing someone merry Christmas, I do not want to feel guilty for saying happy holidays to someone whose religious background I do not know.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.